- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Colorado is trying to disqualify Trump from the ballot
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:36 pm to VolcanicTiger
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:36 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
If you stipulate to there being no insurrection, what in the 14th Am. applies to Trump?
What is the point of that analysis? The entire crux of the matter is whether there was an insurrection and whether Trump engaged in it....
quote:
No citizen has standing to remove someone from the ballot.
The citizens are suing because they believe the relevant state official is obligated to do so. Citizen suits, writs of mandamus, etc., seeking to order officials to do their job is certainly an available remedy.
0
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:36 pm to Dday63
quote:Entirely feasible.
Since I was searching the Colorado site, Colorado law specifically says candidates in the primaries must qualify to hold office. Seems likely most states have this provision.
So, the way I envisioned this going down is that a SoS approves Trump's application to be a primary candidate, then someone petitions the SoS to remove his name based on 14(3), and then lawsuits ensue no matter which direction the SoS goes.
I'm sure the GOP also requires its candidates to be eligible to hold office, so one could also sue the GOP to eliminate him as a primary candidate.
In theory, these lawsuits could continue even if Trump is re-elected in an effort to remove him from office. I would rather SCOTUS take this up quickly.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The first of the two questions just makes ZERO sense. None. Remove? Who? Exclude? Lay out the procedural status of this hypothetical case.
You're being intentionally obtuse. Beto files suit in Texas to remove trump from the Texas ballot (as a presidential candidate since you're struggling) under clause 3. The suit is dismissed due to lack of standing since there is no effecting language in clause 3 that applies to Trump. Would a strict textualist accept that logic by the judge?
quote:
If you could produce zero EVIDENCE that Biden engaged in "insurrection," you might be subject to sanctions.
Define insurrection. I'm sure we can find a few things that work depending on how broad you make it.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:40 pm to GRTiger
quote:And if the judge accepted that evidence as supporting the existence of an "insurrection," there would be no sanctions. Hell, the right judge might even order that he be excluded from the ballot, though that seems unlikely.quote:Define insurrection. I'm sure we can find a few things that work depending on how broad you make it.
If you could produce zero EVIDENCE that Biden engaged in "insurrection," you might be subject to sanctions.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:40 pm to GRTiger
quote:
The suit is dismissed due to lack of standing since there is no effecting language in clause 3 that applies to Trump.
Is the argument that POTUS is not an "officer of the United States?"
quote:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:44 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
They try to manipulate elections to remove our choices with dishonest, flawed logic, then we take theirs off the ballots, top to bottom.
It seems the primary point of disagreement is simply whether the term "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" requires a criminal conviction to be applicable. I don't find either interpretation to be "flawed or dishonest". And we will get a court ruling on this eventually.
People seem to be forgetting the 14th Amendment is a valid, Constitutional Amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the States. It is as valid as any original language of the Constitution, and to the extent there is any conflict, it supersedes earlier provisions.
This isn't some crazy legal theory being tossed around by leftists. Plenty of conservative legal scholars have proposed this same interpretation.
It will get to SCOTUS, and we'll see what happens. Justice Thomas should recuse himself, of course, but he won't. He will likely rule section 3 and the subsequent amnesty provision are no longer applicable.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And if the judge accepted that evidence as supporting the existence of an "insurrection," there would be no sanctions. Hell, the right judge might even order that he be excluded from the ballot, though that seems unlikely.
So your entire existence here is to make sure everyone understands that a suit CAN be filed, regardless of legitimacy?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:45 pm to Dday63
quote:
Justice Thomas should recuse himself, of course, but he won't.
On what basis?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:46 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Is the argument that POTUS is not an "officer of the United States?"
The argument is it would be perfectly reasonable to rule that Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion on its face due to lack of evidence.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:47 pm to GRTiger
quote:No, you are just a horrible writer.
You're being intentionally obtuse.
quote:OK, we assume that O'Rourke is still a Texas resident (I have no idea where he now lives). "Standing" would not be governed by a14.s3, but rather by the Texas statute governing what candidates are eligible to be placed on the ballot.
Beto files suit in Texas to remove trump from the Texas ballot (as a presidential candidate since you're struggling) under clause 3. The suit is dismissed due to lack of standing since there is no effecting language in clause 3 that applies to Trump. Would a strict textualist accept that logic by the judge?
I don't know what that statute is, and I'm not researching it to answer your hypothetical question.
Let's assume that any Texas voter has legal standing (which seems reasonable). If that is the case, the judge would have acted improperly by dismissing the suit.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:don't feel badly. I cannot figure out WTF he is trying to say, either.quote:Is the argument that POTUS is not an "officer of the United States?"
The suit is dismissed due to lack of standing since there is no effecting language in clause 3 that applies to Trump.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Standing based on what? By the very nature of elections, a citizen does not have standing to compel a SoS to disenfranchise another citizen in this manner. This is like being in a line and trying to sue to get ahead in line, because your standing is the equivalent of that of everyone else in line. The underlying premise is that you can vote for whomever you want, but you don't think your neighbor should be allowed that same right. It's insane.
The SoS has that authority, and the voters have standing to compel the SoS to fulfill what they see as being that obligation.
quote:
To rephrase, I do not believe the facts support a claim that Trump engaged in "insurrection." Others believe differently.
Good so you agree it's BS, or you're trying to have it both ways - take the obviously correct position that we both share, while holding out hope that your emotionally desired outcome still is a legitimate endeavor.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:49 pm to GRTiger
That is a little different from saying no language in 14.3 applies to Trump, IMO. Here is how I see the two differently:
(1) 14.3 can be applied, however Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion -- This seems to be what you are saying/asking Hank about.
and
(2) 14.3 is inapplicable to Donald Trump or POTUS, regardless of whether he engaged in insurrection.
(1) 14.3 can be applied, however Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion -- This seems to be what you are saying/asking Hank about.
and
(2) 14.3 is inapplicable to Donald Trump or POTUS, regardless of whether he engaged in insurrection.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No, you are just a horrible writer.
quote:
OK, we assume that O'Rourke is still a Texas resident (I have no idea where he now lives).
No we shouldn't assume that very obvious stipulation for the purposes of this hypothetical. Great question. My poor writing strikes again.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:51 pm to Dday63
quote:
People seem to be forgetting the 14th Amendment is a valid, Constitutional Amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the States. It is as valid as any original language of the Constitution, and to the extent there is any conflict, it supersedes earlier provisions.
Why do you think they chose to list NUMEROUS specific elected positions to which it would be applicable, but NOT President?
That's the first "original language" hurdle I can't get over, without even beginning to address the rest of the nonsense being discussed.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:51 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Standing based on what?
State law. Most, if not all states have provisions empowering citizens to compel elected officials to perform their statutory duties.
Easiest example to think of is suing the clerk of court to remove an improperly filed lien.
Determining eligibility for appearance on the State's ballots, and removing ineligible candidates is part of the SOS's statutory functions in Colorado --- presumably.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:51 pm to GRTiger
quote:YES. It is entirely reasonable that a judge MIGHT interpret the facts that way. It is also entirely possible that a judge might interpret the facts to the contrary.quote:The argument is it would be perfectly reasonable to rule that Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion on its face due to lack of evidence.
Is the argument that POTUS is not an "officer of the United States?"
Hence the filing of the damned lawsuit!
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:52 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I feel like the "given aid or comfort to the enemies of the constitution" definitely fits one of the candidates from 2020..
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:54 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
(2) 14.3 is inapplicable to Donald Trump or POTUS, regardless of whether he engaged in insurrection.
I haven't seen anyone argue this.
To me this is very much like the suits filed against Obama alleging he was not a natural born citizen.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 12:55 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
That's the first "original language" hurdle I can't get over, without even beginning to address the rest of the nonsense being discussed.
A court that wants to apply 14.3 to POTUS will wind their way into POTUS being an officer of the United States in this context.
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News